I read The Atlantic magazine story asserting that Donald Trump denigrated America’s war dead, and then I cringed.
It’s certainly troubling if any president were to say such a thing. But I have no way of reaching an objective determination on whether it was said or not.
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account and connect your subscription to it by clicking here.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active, online-only subscription then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you've not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
I read The Atlantic magazine story asserting that Donald Trump denigrated America’s war dead, and then I cringed.
It’s certainly troubling if any president were to say such a thing. But I have no way of reaching an objective determination on whether it was said or not.
Why? The story is based on anonymous sources.
Not only do we have no idea who these people are, we have no idea why they are speaking up now – two years after — the alleged utterance. And we also don’t know what access, if any, they had to the president.
Regular readers of this column know I’m no fan of Trump. But I am a fan of good journalism. And The Atlantic story doesn’t make the cut.
Yes, there are rare instances where unidentified sources are necessary, but it has become all too common a practice in American journalism.
In this case, the journalist is asking us to take his word that he was told these things.
Sorry, I’m not biting.
“Not having any identified sources in that story makes it far less credible,” said Al Tompkins, a senior faculty member at the Poynter Institute, a journalism school for news professionals.